I liked the first season...good romance, chemistry. But that seemed to all disappear in the last two seasons. I did like the third season better than the second.

+1 to all the critics. The books were boring and all the characters were so predictable and stereotypical.

I didn't like matthew goode in this--all watery eyed and skinny. I can't believe he's the same guy who played Irish declan in that movie with Amy Adams--Leap Year. Guess he's a terrific actor!

I found this thread because none of my friends would watch this show. I think I mostly watched it to groan at how dull it was. It did feel very much like someone decided to make a show out of this dull book series, or were afraid to spice it up at all. It hits all the cliché notes of a vanilla urban fantasy: ultra wealthy boring vampire, Mary Sue female lead, secondary characters who only exist to give the leads something to do. I felt like if this could be made, then we're due for a Laurell K Hamilton or Anne Bishop TV show now.

Even the big action finale was dull on this show...

I love Matthew Goode. He is probably why I got hooked on the show. I really loved the first season. The second season was good but it was hard to follow some of the story line during the time travel to 1590. I just started Season 3 and the prospect of seeing Matthew and Diana with twins will keep me watching.

The first book was good, the other two just ok at best. It was a fun series, but all the vampire romance got old.

mathew goode is easy on the eyes but in general the acting is terrible. the female lead does not have much charisma. and she and matt spend the entire third season just talking about their relationship. it was not worth a two year wait.

Anonymous wrote:The books were a lame Mary Sue twilight fantasy. I too love urban fantasy but can’t bring myself to watch.

Now if they made a show out of an Ilona Andrews or Kim Harrison novel…

Me, too!

I liked the books as mindless entertainment. I also liked season 1 of the show as a cheesy mindless romance. But season 2 and the first show i watched of season 3 have been boring for me.

Anonymous wrote:I liked the first book, but thought the other books were weaker. The over-the-top relationship between the two main characters got annoying.

Still, I'd give it a try.

I agree. I did not love the show's casting so I didn't make it through a few episodes when it first came out. But, maybe I'll give it another go.

I struggled to get through the first two episodes. Does it get better? I loved the books!

I sort of hate-read the books and hate-watched the show. I didn't like the casting of Matthew Goode - too skinny for the role, I thought. But I opened this thread to see if season 2 was out, so I guess I didn't hate it that much!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching this? It popped up as a suggestion for me on Prime and I started it. I'm interested, but want to know if it's worth it to invest the time.

Matthew Goode is very

Very very.

I find myself alternately enjoying/being irritated by the actress that plays Diana. She's a blond dead ringer for Kristen Stewart, which I find a little on the nose - come oooonnnn, but I like the chemistry between her and Matthew Goode. Am hoping we get to see more of Alex Kingston than on speakerphone.

Lindsay Duncan is amazing as always.

Anonymous wrote:I liked it decently well, mainly because Matthew Goode is amazing in the lead role.

It’s cheesy, but enjoyable. I’ll watch pretty much anything with Matthew Goode in it, though. I thought they did a great job with the locations and sets.

The books were a lame Mary Sue twilight fantasy. I too love urban fantasy but can’t bring myself to watch.

Now if they made a show out of an Ilona Andrews or Kim Harrison novel…

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching this? It popped up as a suggestion for me on Prime and I started it. I'm interested, but want to know if it's worth it to invest the time.

Matthew Goode is very